Justia Civil Rights Opinion Summaries

Gray, an inmate at Illinois’s Stateville Correctional Center for 15 years, sued the warden under 42 U.S.C. 1983, alleging that the warden violated the Eighth Amendment by failing adequately to address the infestation of vermin, insects, and birds in Gray’s cell. He alleged that the prison cleans only infrequently and does not fix broken windows and holes in the walls. Gray suffers from asthma and claims that he had not had an attack for seven years before arriving at Stateville and that he now takes a prescription for attacks that occur about every two years. Gray claims that he has also suffered rashes and is given inadequate access to cleaning supplies. Gray has submitted unsuccessful grievances through the prison’s system. The district court granted summary judgment to the warden, finding that none of the conditions Gray described were so bad that they violated the Eighth Amendment. The Seventh Circuit reversed, holding that Gray’s individual claims were dismissed prematurely. On remand, the district court can decide how to coordinate the case with a pending class action involving similar allegations. View "Gray v. Hardy" on Justia Law

Imani and Raziga were charged with bank robbery. While fleeing, Imani forced a driver to give him a ride. Police recovered Imani’s fingerprints from the car. The driver identified Imani, in a photo array and later during a preliminary hearing. Raziga pled guilty and testified against Imani. Imani’s lawyer unsuccessfully moved to suppress the driver’s identification as tainted by television coverage. Imani then sought to represent himself, stating that he questioned his lawyer’s abilities. The judge discounted Imani’s statements that he had been “working on this for 13 months;” that he read at a college level; and that he had appeared in court for at least five previous criminal matters, while represented by lawyers. The judge treated the request as requiring permission and as an “immature decision.” Although Imani said that he had no problem with the trial date, the judge denied permission, stating that, upon a further request, he would reconsider. There was no further request. Imani, represented by counsel, was convicted. The Wisconsin Supreme Court reversed the appellate court's new trial order and affirmed Imani’s conviction, stating that although the court did not conduct a full colloquy, its determination that Imani was not competent to proceed pro se was supported by the record. The district court stated that the competency finding appeared to violate the right to self‐representation, but denied Imani’s habeas petition, based on the finding that Imani’s invocation of that right was not knowing and voluntary. The Seventh Circuit reversed, citing Supreme Court precedent, Faretta v. California (1975). A judge may not deny a competent defendant’s timely invocation of his right to represent himself. View "Imani v. Pollard" on Justia Law

Plaintiff, walking her brown labrador retriever, “Dog,” encountered a gray and white pit bull running loose, which lunged at Dog’s neck. The dogs began to fight. Neighbors unsuccessfully tried to separate them. Plaintiff dropped Dog’s leash so that Dog could defend himself. Officer Davis, driving to a burglary call, received a report that a pit bull was attacking another dog at a corner along his route. Davis pulled over and trained his spotlight on the dogs. Plaintiff, who was crying, identified herself and described Dog. Davis has a form of colorblindness that makes it difficult for him to distinguish certain colors, but had not informed his employer of his condition. Davis shot at what he thought was the aggressor. The dogs separated. Dog limped toward plaintiff, who cried that Davis had shot her dog. Davis then aimed at the pit bull and fired several times. The pit bull left the scene. Dog died as a result of the gunshot wound. From the time Davis had arrived until the time he fired his seventh shot, about two minutes elapsed. The Seventh Circuit affirmed a verdict in favor of Davis in a suit under 42 U.S.C. 1983, alleging unconstitutional seizure of Dog. The court upheld a conclusion that Davis had not committed discovery violations and the court’s rejection of plaintiffs’ proffered Fourth Amendment reasonableness analysis jury instruction. View "Saathoff v. Davis" on Justia Law

Rhein called and sent papers to Illinois Representative DeLuca, accusing DeLuca of violating the constitution and threatening violence. One document asserted: “Now you know why so many of you people or going to be shot because your too selfish too understand the truth.” There were hand-drawn crosshairs. Rhein visited DeLuca’s office and said that he was “ready to start shooting people.” The Illinois State Police discovered that Rhein was licensed to own firearms and had some registered in his name. Officer Coffman concluded that his “mental condition is of such a nature that it poses a clear and present danger,” 430 ILCS 65/8(f), sufficient to justify summary revocation. Police removed his weapons. Coffman sent a letter, stating that Rhein could apply to have the Card reinstated and strongly encouraging Rhein to include three character references plus a psychologist's report. Six months later Rhein requested the Card’s reinstatement, including three references plus a psychologist’s report concluding “that Rhein is all bark and no bite.” Eventually, the Director reinstated Rhein’s Card without a hearing; the firearms were returned. Rhein sued Coffman under 42 U.S.C. 1983. The Seventh Circuit affirmed summary judgment, rejecting Rhein’s claims. Summary revocation, with hearing to follow, is proper when delay poses unacceptable risks; the officer is entitled to qualified immunity on the delay theory, because courts have yet to determine how quickly governmental bodies must act when the right to keep firearms is at stake. The court noted that Coffman had no role in the restoration of the Card or return of the guns. View "Rhein v. Coffman" on Justia Law

In 2005 the City of Joliet filed a condemnation action concerning the Evergreen Housing Complex. The complex’s owner filed suit under the Fair Housing Act and other federal statutes. After a remand by the Seventh Circuit, the condemnation suit went to trial, spread over more than 18 months of calendar time. In 2014, the district court held that Joliet is entitled to possess (and demolish) Evergreen Terrace, but did not decide the amount of compensation. Pursuant to 735 ILCS 30/10-5-5(a), a jury concluded that $15,077,406 was just compensation. The owner appealed, arguing that Evergreen Terrace is not dilapidated and that razing the buildings would have a disparate impact on its predominantly black tenants, in violation of the Fair Housing Act, 42 U.S.C. 3604. The Seventh Circuit affirmed the district judge’s rejection of those arguments. There was substantial evidence to support a finding of no discriminatory intent or disparate impact. The complex is dilapidated and crime-ridden and the city plans to use the land to extend the existing Riverwalk park. View "City of Joliet v. New West, L.P." on Justia Law

McCurdy, a Williamson County Sheriff’s Department patrol deputy, applied for a job with the Southern Illinois Enforcement Group, which investigates drug crimes. She was selected, subject to a background check. While that check was conducted, she remained in her deputy’s post. Agent Braddy, who conducted the check, recommended that she not be hired after discovering that McCurdy had recently filed for bankruptcy and was in a long-term relationship with Mohring, who belonged to a biker gang associated with criminal activity. The Group had previously hired a male who was in financial difficulty and had some criminal associates; he was fired for stealing drugs and money from the unit. In her suit under 42 U.S.C. 1983, McCurdy alleged that she would have been promoted immediately had she been a man and that the Group gave her more scrutiny than it does male applicants. The Seventh Circuit affirmed summary judgment rejecting McCurdy’s hiring theory, but vacated with respect to her delay theory. Agent Braddy testified that she investigated McCurdy exactly the same way as she investigates other applicants. Employers are entitled to learn from their errors. Braddy’s findings constituted sex-neutral reasons for not hiring McCurdy. The district court did not resolve disputes concerning the delay theory. View "McCurdy v. Fitts" on Justia Law

Bell was convicted of conspiring to distribute crack cocaine and of using a communications facility to commit a felony, 21 U.S.C. 841(a), 843(b), 846. The Seventh Circuit affirmed Bell’s 300-month sentence following a limited remand for reconsideration in light of the 2007 amendment to the Sentencing Guidelines. On remand, the district court explained that the below-Guidelines sentence was imposed after the amendment and noted Bell’s extensive criminal history. Bell then brought a collateral attack under 28 U.S.C. 2255, arguing that his attorney had abandoned him on appeal by not replying to that response by the district court to the limited remand. Granting collateral relief, the district court authorized Bell to submit the reply his attorney had not filed to the Seventh Circuit. The appellate court concluded that the submission offered no reason to revise his sentence and affirmed. The court noted that, after granting his section 2255 motion, the district court did not enter a new judgment, and construed Bell’s new notice of appeal as a motion to recall the original mandate, declining to consider additional arguments. View "United States v. Bell" on Justia Law

Schmid was convicted of murdering her boyfriend. She testified that she had heard a voice telling her that she is the Messiah and that the boyfriend had sexually abused her daughter. The jury found her guilty but mentally ill. Her conviction and sentence of 55 years were affirmed in 2004. Schmid unsuccessfully sought Indiana state court collateral review, after which, appointed counsel stopped representing her. Federal law gives state prisoners one year to commence proceedings under 28 U.S.C. 2254, with time suspended while state collateral proceedings are pending. When Schmid sought state collateral review, 178 days remained in the one-year period. Schmid filed a federal petition 15 months after state proceedings ended. Schmid, representing herself, contended that equitable tolling was justified, given her mental problems and delay by former counsel in turning over legal papers. The court denied Schmid’s petition as untimely, stating that Schmid failed to explain which documents she needed in order to file or why she needed them, and did not address Schmid’s claim of mental disability. The Seventh Circuit vacated. The court’s first step should have been to appoint counsel for Schmid under 18 U.S.C. 3006A(a)(2)(B). Counsel could have investigated Schmid’s mental condition and explored the contents of prior counsel’s files, formulating an explanation for delay satisfactory to the judge. View "Schmid v. McCauley" on Justia Law

Heinz was the victim of a 2011 home invasion. One burglar entered, punched Heinz and locked him in a closet, then was joined by a second burglar. They stole Heinz’s possessions, including his car. Police arrested Jackson. After he was acquitted, Jackson sued the police under 42 U.S.C. 1983. The court granted the defendants summary judgment. The Seventh Circuit affirmed, stating that there was probable cause for the arrest. Heinz identified Jackson’s picture in a photo spread; Heinz’s neighbor identified Jackson as one of two people he saw loitering outside Heinz’s house near the time of the burglary. Jackson’s son told the police that his father had committed some burglaries recently. Jackson had no evidence for his claim that the photo spreads were conducted improperly. A search of Jackson’s home was authorized by a warrant. Jackson claimed that he was mistreated during this custody by being held incommunicado and without food for several days, but did not sue any of the guards. The court characterized Jackson’s claims as irresponsible and stated that his attorney “should count himself lucky that the appellees have not requested sanctions under Fed. R. App. P. 38.” View "Jackson v. City of Peoria" on Justia Law

The Board of Education has a written policy that forbids teachers from using racial epithets in front of students, no matter the purpose. Brown, a Chicago sixth grade teacher, caught students passing a note in class. The note contained music lyrics with the offensive word “nigger.” Brown used the episode as an opportunity to conduct an apparently well‐intentioned discussion of why such words must not be used. The school principal happened to observe the lesson. Brown was suspended and brought suit under 42 U.S.C. 1983. Two of his theories were rejected on summary judgment: that his suspension violated his First Amendment rights, and that the school’s policy was so vague that his suspension violated the substantive due process component of the Fourteenth Amendment. The Seventh Circuit affirmed, stating “not everything that is undesirable, annoying, or even harmful amounts to a violation of the law, much less a constitutional problem.” Public‐employee speech is subject to a special set of First Amendment rules. Brown himself emphasized that he was speaking as a teacher, an employee, not as a citizen, so his suspension did not implicate his First Amendment rights. Brown’s surprise at being disciplined, along with a few episodes of non‐enforcement, do not support a substantive due process claim. View "Brown v. Chicago Bd. of Educ." on Justia Law